> Given that observation, creating a [EMAIL PROTECTED] list for
> the discussion of "e-mail operations" as a bounded experiment
> seems like a reasonable thing to do.
I agree, however I think that we need to first get some things sorted
out.
1. write a list charter/aup specifically for this lis
>
>
> i find "prohibited" to be unnecessarily strong.
>
>
> looks pretty much as expected from meeting and discussion between sc and
> mlc.
What do you see that's different from what the MLC initial vote
approved, what the community approved, and what you got?
> From: Alex Pilosov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Oct 30, 2007 2:33 PM
> Subject: [nanog-admin] Vote on AUP submission to SC
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Sorry for the delay, I was catching up with RL things after nanog.
>
> I'd like to call for a vote on modified AUP to be submitted to SC. We'v
> The NANOG mailing list has never been in good order.
>
> The NANOG meetings have always had complaints.
>
> The NANOG community is composed of disparate parties with disparate
> interests, each convinced that their interests are the only ones of
> operation relevance.
it would all be so much s
> Mail seems to be one of those topics which is of interest to many nanog
> subscribers, but simultaneously annoying to many (presumably different)
> nanog subscribers.
what large subject does not fall in this category? this is just life
when you have a large community.
randy
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 01:57:08PM -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> I don't agree that operational issues related to the Internet needs to
> be segregated from the main list, just the politics and kookery. I'm
> not in favor of mailops@ since opening up such a topic as a free for
> all is a recipe f
On 10/30/07, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> We've already talked about this. It was left at "possible".
>
> I don't agree that operational issues related to the Internet needs to
> be segregated from the main list, just the politics and kookery. I'm
> not in favor of mailops@ since opening up such a top
Folks,
FYI
-- Forwarded message --
From: Alex Pilosov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Oct 30, 2007 2:33 PM
Subject: [nanog-admin] Vote on AUP submission to SC
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sorry for the delay, I was catching up with RL things after nanog.
I'd like to call for a vote on mod
Martin Hannigan wrote:
What would work is for people to post on topic so that the list is
interesting and relevant.
Since what people want to talk about is mostly off-topic for the nanog@
list, does this mean that NANOG itself is no longer interested in being
the venue for network operators
On 10/30/07, William B. Norton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/30/07, Martin Hannigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 10/30/07, Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 30-Oct-2007, at 12:55, Andy Davidson wrote:
> > >
>
> I'm trying to understand your point here - you believe that
On 10/30/07, Martin Hannigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/30/07, Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On 30-Oct-2007, at 12:55, Andy Davidson wrote:
> >
> > > I would support the creation of a mail-operators list (& agenda time
> > > for a mailops bof, since a lot of networks are smal
On 10/30/07, Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 30-Oct-2007, at 12:55, Andy Davidson wrote:
>
> > I would support the creation of a mail-operators list (& agenda time
> > for a mailops bof, since a lot of networks are small enough to mean
> > that netops and sysops are often the same guys)
At 12:55 PM 10/30/2007, Andy Davidson wrote:
On 30 Oct 2007, at 16:21, Daniel Senie wrote:
At 12:07 PM 10/30/2007, Al Iverson wrote:
On 10/30/07, chuck goolsbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On a more relevant and operational sort of note, it sure would be
> nice if there were a NAMOG (North
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-nanog-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Popovitch
> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 10:27 AM
> To: nanog-futures
> Subject: Re: mail operators list
>
> On Tue, 2007-10-30 at 13:09 -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
> > On 30-Oct-2007,
On Tue, 2007-10-30 at 13:09 -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
> On 30-Oct-2007, at 12:55, Andy Davidson wrote:
>
> > I would support the creation of a mail-operators list (& agenda time
> > for a mailops bof, since a lot of networks are small enough to mean
> > that netops and sysops are often the same
On 30-Oct-2007, at 12:55, Andy Davidson wrote:
I would support the creation of a mail-operators list (& agenda time
for a mailops bof, since a lot of networks are small enough to mean
that netops and sysops are often the same guys) if it's deemed to be
offtopic on nanog-l.
Mail seems to
On 30 Oct 2007, at 16:21, Daniel Senie wrote:
At 12:07 PM 10/30/2007, Al Iverson wrote:
On 10/30/07, chuck goolsbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On a more relevant and operational sort of note, it sure would be
> nice if there were a NAMOG (North American Mail Operators Group) or
> the like to
17 matches
Mail list logo
